[mapserver-users] OGR versus PostgreSQL and XML-Mapfiles?

[Stefan F. Keller]

Dear Stephen,

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 17:32:14 -0500, you wrote:
>1. There must be enough vector formats to go around why make more.
>Shapefiles seem to be the quickest because
>of the native support if you can live with the limitations of xbase
>files. XML as a file format would kill performance...

Agreed, there are some around: we use actually such a XML format nationwide for
which we have strong arguments, while quite some arguments speak against
shapefiles: the latter are open published but still proprietary (remark: isn't
using them in Mapserver somehow inconsistent with open source?) and xbase is a
bottleneck, etc..

Aren't we the "parents" who can define ourselves what is "native" to Mapserver?


>2. Not that I'm aware of, although it's sure been discussed a bunch.
>XML ain't enough, you need a schema to be of
>any use. A DTD won't do it.

That's true: because of this we put on top of the above mentioned XML-format a
data description language which is compatible to XML-Schema and UML. That's
another reason why we want to use this XML format for Mapserver input.

So, what I still want to evaluate is, if a sequential (binary) file object
stream to Mapserver (perhaps via OGR as zipped XML) is faster and more flexible
in querying than a comparable (possibly indexed) object stream from PostgreSQL?

-- Stefan Keller